6 ms·

I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything. I just wonder how WTC7 collapsed in 5 seconds despite not being hit by any aircraft. The video just has always baff

I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything. I just wonder how WTC7 collapsed in 5 seconds despite not being hit by any aircraft. The video just has always baffled me, and no explanation, including NIST's, has come close to passing the pub test. https://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/ https://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/

pupdogg 5y ago
NIST is still withholding the mathematical model data that was used for their simulation of the collapse to derive their results. More recent rebuttal from NIST can be found here: https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/20-years-later-nists-world-trade-center-investigation-and-its-legacy#comment-102311 https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/20-years-later-nis... FYI: Shyam Sunder, the author of the article, was the lead investigator of this collapse.
yawaworht1978 5y ago
I just checked the nist report. An airplane impact doesn't even matter, wtc7 wasn't hit by one. It did not collapse in 5 seconds, 5 seconds was the visually obvious footage, but many things happened before that, it took 7 hours. - Debris from wtc1 ignites fire on at least 10 floors. Sounds believable to me. - floor 7-13 fires got out of control, primary sprinkler system failed, the redundancy or backup system didn't not work due to damage from the tower 1 and 2, the water supply for the backup relied on the cities water system which was mia on that day. This caused the fire to spread diagonally across the building. Sounds ok to me, I don't think anyone could make this up and it would be allowed into such a report without review. There's much more but assuming usual explosives, this has to be considered: The smallest charge capable of initiating column failure would have resulted in a sound level of 130 to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile. This would be quite a couple seconds or max a minute before the full collapse, but no footage had such sounds, nor did witnesses report such sounds, and any nearby seismology equipment would detect irregularities. Just for reference 130-140 decibels are much louder than I would have thought, 130 is peak stadium crowd noise, 135 is an air raid siren, 140 is a jet engine take off.
- mistermann 5y ago
  > There's much more but assuming usual explosives, this has to be considered... True, but it is possible to apply the same strict epistemology to the consensus narrative as well, like how is it that "many things happened" resulting in an orderly freefall that appeared magically homogeneous across the entire structure, resulting in a descent that is (afaik) largely indistinguishable from a controlled demolition. > but no footage had such sounds, nor did witnesses report such sounds, and any nearby seismology equipment would detect irregularities A strict epistemological examination wouldn't let such premises be deployed without scrutiny.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    > how is it that "many things happened" resulting in an orderly freefall that appeared magically homogeneous across the entire structure I mentioned in my other comment the Surfside condo collapse, and that accidentally illustrates a key point about the WTC7 collapse. In the video of the Surfside condo collapse, we get a decent view of the origin of the collapse, so we can see how the collapse progresses. But with WTC7, the video we have is of the roof of the back side (with respect to the collapse origin). So we don't have visual of the collapse progress until it reaches the fairly homogeneous progressive collapse phase. > resulting in a descent that is (afaik) largely indistinguishable from a controlled demolition. All progressive collapses are going to look superficially similar. The most notable facet of a controlled demolition is the sheer sound of the charges going off to initiate the collapse. I've had the pleasure of being able to view a controlled demolition live, and I can tell you that the sound is loud enough and distinctive enough that all of the rescuers working on the debris pile that was the twin towers would have been reporting the explosions.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      > But with WTC7, the video we have is of the roof of the back side (with respect to the collapse origin). Which in itself seems a bit odd, not unlike the lack of footage of the Pentagon (publicly released footage, at least). > So we don't have visual of the collapse progress until it reaches the fairly homogeneous progressive collapse phase. Suggesting there is some uncertainty involved. > The most notable facet of a controlled demolition is the sheer sound of the charges going off to initiate the collapse. If one uses the traditional loud approach, agreed. > I've had the pleasure of being able to view a controlled demolition live, and I can tell you that the sound is loud enough and distinctive enough that all of the rescuers working on the debris pile that was the twin towers would have been reporting the explosions. Certainly seems plausible.
throwrqX 5y ago
I generally don't pay much attention to conspiracy theories but with regards to WTC 7 I feel there was something missing, a common video I see cited for this is this one [0], where Larry Silverstein, owner of the trade centers, says the fire department 'pulled' the building down because they determined that would be safer than letting it collapse of its own volition. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZlmHvd_RZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZlmHvd_RZU
- oofabz 5y ago
  >I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they are going to be able to contain the fire. "I said, "you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". And they made that decision to pull. And then we watched the building collapse. It sounds to me like Silverstein and the NYFD were talking about pulling firefighters out of WTC7. Once the fire department realized saving the building was a lost cause, there was no reason for firefighters to remain inside and risk their lives further. I don't hear anything in the video about "pulling" the building down.
  - danielschonfeld 5y ago
    If you're going to quote Silverstein and give him the benefit of the doubt, then at least quote the full quote. The end of your quote is "... and then we watched the building collapse..." leading you to understand that he's referring to a cause and effect. As in, they decided to pull and then the building collapsed. This means one of two things: 1) They pulled as in the context of some kind of an act of a pre determined demolition of the building 2) Something closer to what you're referring to, but with the foresight that the building WILL collapse and actually did as they have expected it to by their decision to pull the men (and women) and equipment. To which of course the first question is, why then? why at 5pm and not any of the hours before Larry made that decision. It only took about 40 or so minutes for the big buildings to fail. Option (2) is equally problematic as option (1) in the context of 9/11. Given that the claim is that all 3 buildings (all the WTC complex really) has suffered an equal progressive fate made by 2 projectiles hitting WTC 1&2.
jcranmer 5y ago
> I just wonder how WTC7 collapsed in 5 seconds despite not being hit by any aircraft. Did you see the video of, say, the Surfside condo collapse? When a skyscraper starts to collapse--and it doesn't really matter all that much how it starts to collapse--it invariably collapses quite quickly and in much the same way. WTC7 didn't collapse in "5 seconds". The actual observed portion of the collapse took about 9 seconds, and this is a view that only shows about the first ⅓ of the collapse. One of the things that greatly hampers analysis of the WTC7 collapse is there just aren't good views of much of WTC7, and so the full extent of the damage it received from its front-row seat of a collapsing building isn't entirely known.
anonAndOn 5y ago
Because they built something too big for the foundation? I bet if you weaken those trusses between 5&7, gravity will handle the rest. >The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[16]:xxxviii The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
the_third_wave 5y ago
Page 109-110 [1] covers the collapse of WTC7, the conclusion is: Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior. [1] https://vault.fbi.gov/9-11-attacks-investigation-and-related-materials/9-11-material-released-in-response-to-executive-order-14040/april-4-2016-electronic-communication-part-01-of-01/at_download/file https://vault.fbi.gov/9-11-attacks-investigation-and-related...

pupdogg 5y ago

NIST is still withholding the mathematical model data that was used for their simulation of the collapse to derive their results. More recent rebuttal from NIST can be found here: https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/20-years-later-nists-world-trade-center-investigation-and-its-legacy#comment-102311 https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/20-years-later-nis... FYI: Shyam Sunder, the author of the article, was the lead investigator of this collapse.

yawaworht1978 5y ago

I just checked the nist report. An airplane impact doesn't even matter, wtc7 wasn't hit by one. It did not collapse in 5 seconds, 5 seconds was the visually obvious footage, but many things happened before that, it took 7 hours. - Debris from wtc1 ignites fire on at least 10 floors. Sounds believable to me. - floor 7-13 fires got out of control, primary sprinkler system failed, the redundancy or backup system didn't not work due to damage from the tower 1 and 2, the water supply for the backup relied on the cities water system which was mia on that day. This caused the fire to spread diagonally across the building. Sounds ok to me, I don't think anyone could make this up and it would be allowed into such a report without review. There's much more but assuming usual explosives, this has to be considered: The smallest charge capable of initiating column failure would have resulted in a sound level of 130 to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile. This would be quite a couple seconds or max a minute before the full collapse, but no footage had such sounds, nor did witnesses report such sounds, and any nearby seismology equipment would detect irregularities. Just for reference 130-140 decibels are much louder than I would have thought, 130 is peak stadium crowd noise, 135 is an air raid siren, 140 is a jet engine take off.

mistermann 5y ago
> There's much more but assuming usual explosives, this has to be considered... True, but it is possible to apply the same strict epistemology to the consensus narrative as well, like how is it that "many things happened" resulting in an orderly freefall that appeared magically homogeneous across the entire structure, resulting in a descent that is (afaik) largely indistinguishable from a controlled demolition. > but no footage had such sounds, nor did witnesses report such sounds, and any nearby seismology equipment would detect irregularities A strict epistemological examination wouldn't let such premises be deployed without scrutiny.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  > how is it that "many things happened" resulting in an orderly freefall that appeared magically homogeneous across the entire structure I mentioned in my other comment the Surfside condo collapse, and that accidentally illustrates a key point about the WTC7 collapse. In the video of the Surfside condo collapse, we get a decent view of the origin of the collapse, so we can see how the collapse progresses. But with WTC7, the video we have is of the roof of the back side (with respect to the collapse origin). So we don't have visual of the collapse progress until it reaches the fairly homogeneous progressive collapse phase. > resulting in a descent that is (afaik) largely indistinguishable from a controlled demolition. All progressive collapses are going to look superficially similar. The most notable facet of a controlled demolition is the sheer sound of the charges going off to initiate the collapse. I've had the pleasure of being able to view a controlled demolition live, and I can tell you that the sound is loud enough and distinctive enough that all of the rescuers working on the debris pile that was the twin towers would have been reporting the explosions.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    > But with WTC7, the video we have is of the roof of the back side (with respect to the collapse origin). Which in itself seems a bit odd, not unlike the lack of footage of the Pentagon (publicly released footage, at least). > So we don't have visual of the collapse progress until it reaches the fairly homogeneous progressive collapse phase. Suggesting there is some uncertainty involved. > The most notable facet of a controlled demolition is the sheer sound of the charges going off to initiate the collapse. If one uses the traditional loud approach, agreed. > I've had the pleasure of being able to view a controlled demolition live, and I can tell you that the sound is loud enough and distinctive enough that all of the rescuers working on the debris pile that was the twin towers would have been reporting the explosions. Certainly seems plausible.

throwrqX 5y ago

I generally don't pay much attention to conspiracy theories but with regards to WTC 7 I feel there was something missing, a common video I see cited for this is this one [0], where Larry Silverstein, owner of the trade centers, says the fire department 'pulled' the building down because they determined that would be safer than letting it collapse of its own volition. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZlmHvd_RZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZlmHvd_RZU

oofabz 5y ago
>I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they are going to be able to contain the fire. "I said, "you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". And they made that decision to pull. And then we watched the building collapse. It sounds to me like Silverstein and the NYFD were talking about pulling firefighters out of WTC7. Once the fire department realized saving the building was a lost cause, there was no reason for firefighters to remain inside and risk their lives further. I don't hear anything in the video about "pulling" the building down.
- danielschonfeld 5y ago
  If you're going to quote Silverstein and give him the benefit of the doubt, then at least quote the full quote. The end of your quote is "... and then we watched the building collapse..." leading you to understand that he's referring to a cause and effect. As in, they decided to pull and then the building collapsed. This means one of two things: 1) They pulled as in the context of some kind of an act of a pre determined demolition of the building 2) Something closer to what you're referring to, but with the foresight that the building WILL collapse and actually did as they have expected it to by their decision to pull the men (and women) and equipment. To which of course the first question is, why then? why at 5pm and not any of the hours before Larry made that decision. It only took about 40 or so minutes for the big buildings to fail. Option (2) is equally problematic as option (1) in the context of 9/11. Given that the claim is that all 3 buildings (all the WTC complex really) has suffered an equal progressive fate made by 2 projectiles hitting WTC 1&2.

jcranmer 5y ago

> I just wonder how WTC7 collapsed in 5 seconds despite not being hit by any aircraft. Did you see the video of, say, the Surfside condo collapse? When a skyscraper starts to collapse--and it doesn't really matter all that much how it starts to collapse--it invariably collapses quite quickly and in much the same way. WTC7 didn't collapse in "5 seconds". The actual observed portion of the collapse took about 9 seconds, and this is a view that only shows about the first ⅓ of the collapse. One of the things that greatly hampers analysis of the WTC7 collapse is there just aren't good views of much of WTC7, and so the full extent of the damage it received from its front-row seat of a collapsing building isn't entirely known.

anonAndOn 5y ago

Because they built something too big for the foundation? I bet if you weaken those trusses between 5&7, gravity will handle the rest. >The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[16]:xxxviii The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

the_third_wave 5y ago

Page 109-110 [1] covers the collapse of WTC7, the conclusion is: Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior. [1] https://vault.fbi.gov/9-11-attacks-investigation-and-related-materials/9-11-material-released-in-response-to-executive-order-14040/april-4-2016-electronic-communication-part-01-of-01/at_download/file https://vault.fbi.gov/9-11-attacks-investigation-and-related...